Standing Committee F

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 8 - Tests for registration:

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 131, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 11, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.—[Dr. Whitehead.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 132, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 11, after 'mammals' and insert 'with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 133, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 13, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'controlled'.
 Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 26, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 27, after 'mammals' and insert 'with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 29, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests by hunting'.
 Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 38, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 138, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 42, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 6, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 7, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 29, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 142, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 37, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control'.
 Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 13, page 5, line 3, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control activity'.
 Amendment No. 144, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 8, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 145, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 20, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control'.
 Amendment No. 146, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 21, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 147, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 23, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 148, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 25, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 149, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 30, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 150, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 32, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 151, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 34, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 152, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 3, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 153, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 21, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 154, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 30, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 19, page 7, line 43, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 156, in 
clause 19, page 8, line 5, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 157, in 
clause 19, page 8, line 14, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 158, in 
clause 22, page 8, line 34, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 159, in 
clause 22, page 8, line 36, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 160, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 161, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 18, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 162, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 27, leave out 'hunts' and insert 'controls pests'.
 Amendment No. 163, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 29, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 164, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 38, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 165, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 43, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 166, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 2, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 167, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 11, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 168, in 
clause 30, page 11, line 38, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 169, in 
clause 30, page 11, line 39, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 170, in 
clause 34, page 13, line 21, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 171, in 
clause 34, page 13, line 25, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 172, in 
clause 38, page 15, line 10, leave out 'hunts' and insert 'controls pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 173, in 
clause 38, page 15, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 117, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'registered' insert 
 'for the purpose of pest control'.
 Amendment No. 118, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 8, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 119, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'Controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 120, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'activity to control pests'.
 Amendment No. 121, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 122, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 123, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'to be controlled'.
 Amendment No. 124, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 125, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 126, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 127, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'to be controlled'.
 Amendment No. 129, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 26, after 'registered' and insert 
 'for the purpose of pest control'.

Alun Michael: We are dealing with amendments that seek to substitute the words ''pest control'' for the word ''hunting'' at many points in the Bill. I have considered the alternative wording since it was tabled and, because it does not alter the substance of the utility test, it would not alter the practical effect of the Bill. The test in clause 8(1) would remain the same and would clearly be about the control of pests for the purposes set out.
 However, I have one reservation about making that straightforward change in terminology. Over the years, Parliament has sought to deal with the issue of hunting; to amend the Bill so that hunting was not referred to in clause 8 could be perceived as doing something rather different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) seeks to do. As I understand it, he seeks to be clear about the purposes for which hunting would be allowed in future. 
 Having given some thought to the matter and having sought the advice of my legal advisers, I have offered my hon. Friend a form of words that would retain the reference to hunting, and therefore make it clear that we are dealing with hunting in the clause, but would go on to provide a reference to pest control. The term ''pest control'' would be inserted after the second ''is'' in line 12. We would then add the following: 
''For the purposes of subsection (1) hunting is pest control if and only if it is''
 and then we would go on to apply the tests. That would be a neat way of achieving what my hon. Friend is trying to do: namely, to make explicit the purposes for which any activities would be permitted after the Bill becomes law. It does not have the disadvantage of appearing to fudge the issue of whether we are dealing with hunting, which of course we are. 
 I believe that the Clerk has been able to make copies available to the Committee as an example, so that Members know what I am talking about. Copies are on the Table, but we cannot deal with the matter because the proposed amendment cannot be selected for discussion today. However, the proposed amendment relates to this area of the Bill, so we would be able to return to the point on Thursday. It would be to the advantage of the Committee for that amendment to be tabled today and for us to deal with it. In order to facilitate that, I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test should not push the lead amendment. 
 My hon. Friend seeks to make changes in other places; he has assiduously gone through the Bill and made a judgment about where the term ''pest control'' would be better than the word ''hunting''. Frankly, I 
 have not had an opportunity to sit down and consider all those places; there may be some places where the change makes sense and others where it does not. However, he would lose nothing by not pressing his point today. I believe that, in good order, we could pick up on those points during the discussion on Thursday.

James Gray: I want to make it clear that the amendment proposed for Thursday will be as unacceptable to us as the group of amendments that have already been tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. It makes no difference at all from our point of view.
 The Minister asked me three particular questions before we broke for lunch, and I shall answer them. First, he asked me whether I genuinely believe that hunts tend to catch old and vulnerable foxes. The answer is, of course, yes. A very high proportion of foxes killed by organised hunts are old or vulnerable. Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), we believe that hunts provide a useful service. He apparently believes that foxes should not be killed by hunts, and that it does not matter whether they are fit, young and keen or whether they are old and diseased. 
 Secondly, the Minister asked about the healthy fox population south of the river in Wandsworth. There is no hunting there, which he believes demonstrates that there can be a healthy population without there being hunting. I have looked into the matter, and he should know that the London borough of Wandsworth appointed an organisation called Wildlife Management Ltd. to look after the fox population in Wandsworth. Since 1 March 2002—about nine months—it has trapped and killed 2,717 foxes in the London borough of Wandsworth alone. There is a healthy population south of the river because Government-appointed organisations, which are operating entirely in accordance with the Minister's plans, have killed 2,717 foxes in Wandsworth.

Alun Michael: That was a fascinating contribution to the Committee's discussion. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggests that hunts are entirely virtuous in that they go out to seek old and vulnerable foxes. The issue is not the age of the fox but whether it is a pest. That is why clause 8 does not contain an element asking the hunt to check the age of a fox before they start chasing it. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to talk about the hon. Gentleman shooting himself in the foot in this Committee, but he seems to have done so.

Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment, when I have dealt with the last intervention.
 The question is whether the animal is a pest rather than whether it is old or vulnerable. As far as Wandsworth is concerned, a population of 2,700 foxes is pretty healthy. That can in no way be ascribed to the activities of a hunt in that area.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the other foot. It looks like he wants to repeat his injuries.

James Gray: I have not shot myself in the foot. My point is that 2,717 foxes were indiscriminately culled. The 2,717 foxes included all foxes, whether or not they were pests. Wildlife Management Ltd. says that it is
''rightly confident in success on all occasions, due to the fact that we have an enviable 100 per cent. success rate in this field.''
 In other words, it has removed every fox from the London borough of Wandsworth. It is not wildlife management or successful culling; it is obliterating them all, which is precisely what we have warned the Minister will happen if he abolishes foxhunting.

Alun Michael: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants companies to be told that they have to encourage the fox population in order to go out to control them as pests. He has lost the thread of his own argument.

Peter Luff: I suspect that we will return to the utility test. In my view, every fox in mid-Worcestershire is a pest because of the threat that each and every fox poses to ground-nesting birds, and game birds in particular. Therefore, every single fox that is killed by whatever method is a pest. The Minister has not taken that issue on board.

Alun Michael: I take on board the fact that the hon. Gentleman believes that every fox is a pest. I suspect that not all farmers would agree with him because there are other pests on which foxes feed. The existence of a fox population keeps down certain pests, and therefore I am not sure that he is right.

Michael Foster: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister would like to make the point that any fox residing on the Westlands estate, Droitwich, which is in mid-Worcestershire, would not be a pest to ground-nesting birds.

Alun Michael: I ought to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution before I allow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) to withdraw his previous remarks.

Peter Luff: Every rural fox.

Alun Michael: If we are not careful, we shall be in danger of having a discussion on semi-rural foxes.
 Seriously, the Committee is starting to tease out the real issues that legislation needs to address. The real issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has sought to bring out in the amendment are what type of activity is useful, what the purpose of utility is, what the reason for undertaking certain activities is and why populations, groups of animals, or individual animals should be caught and killed or pursued. Those issues are at the heart of the Bill because without addressing necessity, we cannot go on to deal with cruelty.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, then amended by the hon. Member for Worcester? Where there are large numbers of ground-nesting birds, what does the Minister think that the fox's staple diet will
 be? Accordingly, does he think that that fox is likely to be a pest? Further, can he tell the Committee what other things he thinks that a fox eats?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on the range of birds on which the fox may predate. The clause relates to the current definition, as defined in other legislation, which is limited to game birds. Biodiversity is also mentioned, in relation to where there are birds whose existence is endangered, so the provision is not quite as limited as it might appear, but that point has been raised in debate and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will return to it later.

Nicholas Soames: I am very glad that the Minister is considering such an urgent and vital point, which is of grave concern to gamekeepers. They will be pleased to hear that he is, at least, considering it seriously. Upon what other animals does the fox predate, to make him a pest?

Alun Michael: The ones that would make the fox a pest are farm birds, lambs and the type of ground-nesting birds to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred. I am happy to accept that.

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the Minister for continuing on this matter and acknowledge that he will review it. Does he realise that in parts of Norfolk and elsewhere where there are rare ground-nesting birds, but no game birds, the fox is a very serious pest indeed? By far the best way of controlling the fox in that situation is to hunt him with hounds.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion about the best method of controlling foxes. I accept that there is a need to control them where they threaten a particular species. That is the point of clause 8(1)(h), which refers to an area's biodiversity. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, successive Governments have put measures in place to protect threatened bird life. We are introducing measures to encourage farmers in the protection—[Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. There seems to be a sub-committee going on while the Minister is speaking. Can we please listen to the debate, which is very important?

Alun Michael: I was referring to the fact that Governments have put measures in place, some of which have been there for some time, to encourage the return of farmland bird populations. The point is important and I take it on board.

Andrew George: I wonder whether the debate is straying towards confusing a predator and a pest. There comes a point at which the level of predation on a particular vulnerable species is a matter of deep concern and becomes a matter for pest control. However, the argument that all foxes are pests is wrong. All foxes are predators. If we go back to the definition suggested by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, we might recognise that we are talking not about all foxes being pests but about all foxes being predators, and occasionally, they reach a level where pest control methods are clearly needed.

Alun Michael: That was the point of the exchange between me and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the hon. Gentleman has put it more elegantly than I did and has made a valid point. The fact that the fox acts as a predator is sometimes not a problem. It is sometimes helpful to farmers. Sometimes, it leads to the fox being rightly regarded as a pest. The control of those pestiferous activities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test called them in moving the amendment, is the subject of the tests in clause 8(1).
 The amendments substitute the words ''pest control'' for the word ''hunting'' at many points in the Bill. They do not affect the substance of the utility test in the change of wording. It can be argued, as my hon. Friend did, that to some extent it makes clearer the purpose and the nature of the test applied in clause 8(1). 
 We have already begun to discuss the range of purposes for which hunting may take place. We shall come to the Opposition's thoughts on that when we debate the group of amendments headed by amendment No. 18. The Opposition want a much wider definition in clause 8(1), but, were their amendments to succeed, that matter could be dealt with in the fullness of time. I am not seeking to avoid the debate, which I look forward to when we reach that amendment. 
 The advantage of the present wording is that it makes it clear that we are dealing with the issue of hunting and are seeking to eradicate the cruelty associated with hunting. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. That is why the wording in the draft amendment would make it clear that we are dealing with both hunting and the intentions of the Bill. The amendment would insert the words ''pest control'' in clause 8, page 3, line 12 after the second ''is'' and then add: 
''For the purposes of subsection (1) hunting is pest control if and only if it is''.
 As my hon. Friend suggests, such explicit wording would be helpful to any layman reading the Bill. 
 I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. By tabling the amendment today, I hope that the Committee will be able to consider it on Thursday. I therefore invite my hon. Friend not to press the first amendment, although all the others can be considered then. I should be happy to give a more considered response about where it would be appropriate to change the wording. 
 Whatever the activity is called, the Bill requires it to be tested to see whether using dogs is the least cruel way of achieving the objective. The key point of the Bill is to prevent unnecessary suffering related to hunting. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore accept my suggestion, which I believe meets the point that he made in his introductory remarks.

Marion Roe: Minister, I remind you that, if you wish to speak to the other amendments, they are grouped with amendment No. 131, even if the hon.
 Member for Southampton, Test withdraws it later. If you wish to speak to them, now is the moment to do it.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mrs. Roe. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test tabled a single amendment at the start—that is the one that we have been debating in specific terms—which signals a series of changes in the language of the Bill. I have suggested a slightly different amendment that accepts what my hon. Friend seeks to do. I have given him the wording, which has also been passed round the Room.
 I shall be happy to respond to the other amendments when we return to my suggested amendment. I do not want my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. Nor do I want the amendments to fall at this stage. However, in the light of my suggestion, which we shall discuss on Thursday, I beg your indulgence, Mrs. Roe, to consider each of the amendments separately in order to respond adequately to the Committee.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The procedure normally is that a group of amendments is discussed as a group. If the mover of the lead amendment does not speak to subsequent amendments in that group, that is a matter for him. That does not allow the Minister to have several bites of the cherry. He still has to address all the amendments in the group. If he does not have any notes, that is a matter for him and his advisers. It seems that the progress of the Committee will be delayed if he keeps jumping up and down saying, ''I think I will talk about that one now.''

Marion Roe: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the point to which I drew the Minister's attention. The amendments are grouped with amendment No. 131. Now is the time to discuss those amendments.
ty 40
 Alun Michael: I am trying to help the Committee. Rather than going through line by line and speaking to each of the amendments, we have discussed the general principle of all the amendments in the group. I have explained in relation to the lead amendment a way in which I can meet the wish of my hon. Friend. I know others agree with the point that he made very well during the debate this morning. When we come to the other amendments, they are either pressed or they are not.

Marion Roe: They are being discussed now, and therefore cannot come later. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Test accepts what the Minister is saying, there will be a new amendment that will be debated later. The amendments are already being debated with the original amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman. If he chooses to withdraw that amendment, I cannot reintroduce the other amendments again later.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am slightly bemused by what is going on. As I understand it, we are trying to arrange a stitch-up that has been agreed on the Government side. That is clearly what is happening and the real question is whether it can happen in an elegant or inelegant way. I am in favour of an inelegant way because it is clearly a deal to make the Bill even worse as far as hunting is concerned. That is clearly what the Minister is after, and I would like to ensure that we
 know how to behave according to the rules of order. I want to protest at the deal, but I want to know when it would be suitable for me to do so. If you could help me, Mrs. Roe, that would be very kind.

Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) may have a preference for being inelegant—that is his choice. What has actually happened is that I listened to—[Interruption.] The quibbling and grumbling of Conservative Members is far from elegant.
 I listened to what my hon. Friend said in moving the amendment. As a result, I sought to discuss it while the Committee was adjourned to consider the impact of the amendments, and came up with something that deals rather elegantly with the issues raised by my hon. Friend. It makes it clear that we are dealing with hunting, and the nature of the activity that clause 8(1) will allow in the future. We had that discussion immediately before I came to the Committee, and the draft amendment has been circulated to members on both sides of the Committee at exactly the same time. If that amendment were tabled this afternoon, it would be available to be dealt with on Thursday. I suggest that it would be a better way of amending the Bill. 
 I accept the stricture that you placed on me, Mrs. Roe, but what of the other amendments? We were simply resisting the first amendment, but some of the other amendments may be sensible consequentially. It might be easier to suggest that they be withdrawn. We are willing to accept a re-tabling, which would be one way of dealing with the matter. Some of the other amendments, in the light of the suggestion that I have made, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has not yet had a chance to respond, might then make more sense because of the language consistency. We might have to deal with that on Report, if you advise that we cannot deal with it in Committee, Mrs. Roe, but it would be preferable to deal with it in Committee.

Marion Roe: As a Chairman, I am not privy to any arrangements made between hon. Members during the adjourned period for lunch. I just remind them that one amendment has been moved and is before us at the moment, which is No. 131. We are considering the other amendments at the same time. This is the only time that those can actually be debated. It could be possible for them to be put formally later, but this is the moment at which we are considering them, in line with No. 131. If anybody has any comments to make on those amendments, this is the time to do it. We can then put those amendments formally, if I am requested to do so and decide to accept the request. That can be done later, perhaps when other amendments are tabled on Thursday. I hope that that is clear to all Committee members.

Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I wonder whether you could confirm something. I have found in my place, as I daresay have other hon. Members, a typed draft amendment, underneath which it says, ''D.G.''—perhaps that means God willing or thanks be to God, I do not know. It says:
''Draft for consultation purposes, D.G. 14/i''.
 Am I not correct in thinking that if amendments are to be discussed by the Committee they have first to be considered by the Chair to ensure that they are in order? I do not know who ''D.G.'' is, but whether or not the Minister thinks that it is appropriate to discuss this amendment today or on Thursday, that is for the Chair to decide, not him. Although the Minister might, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested, have done some backstairs deal with his chums on the Back Benches, that is nothing to do with the Committee or with you, Mrs. Roe. Will you rule, if you have not already done so, that if the Minister has finished speaking on this group of amendments, that is all we need to hear from him?

Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. It is clear that some Opposition Members do not like being helped. I am trying to help the Committee. It would have been perfectly possible for my suggested amendment to be tabled later today, so that it could be discussed for the first time on Thursday. I have sought to share, after speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for a couple of minutes, a suggestion that I think will assist the Committee and bring greater elegance to the Bill's phrasing.
 I accept entirely the point that has been made, and perhaps I misunderstood the reason that it was made. The other amendments cannot be debated again, because the opportunity to do so is now. However, if my suggestion is accepted by my hon. Friend and then by the Committee, between now and Thursday I will consider the amendments and come to a view, outside the Committee—although I will share that, perhaps in writing, with all Committee members—on which, if any, should be accepted, if my hon. Friend moves them formally at the appropriate point in the Bill.

Marion Roe: Order. Can I say that any amendment that is placed before me will be considered in exactly the same way as that in which I have considered all the amendments that have been placed before me? I hope that most Committee members will feel that I have created opportunity for debate properly in accordance with our rules.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. As I understand it, when the Committee began, you laid down, perfectly properly, the terms by which you wished to conduct the Committee. You made it clear that amendments should be with you in time. You were extremely kind at the beginning of the arrangements, when difficulties arose because it was immediately after Christmas. From now on, however, that is not the circumstance.
 Having been on many Committees, over many years, I can say that it is very unusual to have a suggestion that we should change the Committee's arrangements in order to make—

Marion Roe: Order. There is no question of changing any arrangements of the Committee. I shall explain. The Committee has before it at the moment amendment No. 131, with which we are considering a selection of amendments. Suggestions have been made by the Minister. It is not for me or anybody else to
 decide whether the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who moved the amendment, will accept suggestions from anybody else in the Committee. That is a matter for him and nobody else. We must remember, however, that the other amendments that we are considering cannot be debated later. I can put them formally if I so choose and I have been requested to do so.
 I now wish to talk about a further amendment that I understand has been tabled. It will be within time. There is no question of any rule changes. It will be for me to decide whether I accept it and whether it will be debated next Thursday. The decision will be mine, in the same way as for all the other amendments put to me and my colleague. We have considered them very carefully, and I hope that members of the Committee feel that we have done our job as fairly as possible.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I seek your further clarification. The draft amendment that is circulating round the Room has been signed by somebody called DG. The only members of the Committee whose surnames begin with G are myself, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. I notice that the group of amendments that we are discussing has been tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who has made no useful contribution to the amendments so far, other than taking his place. I do not see how somebody called DG is in a position to table any amendment. I wonder whether we could have clarification, Mrs. Roe.

Marion Roe: Minister, would you kindly reply?

Alun Michael: Yes, Mrs. Roe. A piece of paper prepared during the lunch break has been passed around the members of the Committee by me. Through my officials, I sought the Clerk's agreement to make it available so that members of the Committee know what is going on. Some Opposition Members may think that Ministers should not be helpful to the Committee. I think that we should. [Hon. Members: ''Who is DG?''] An official. [Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] I have circulated the draft amendment for information. It can be no more than a draft amendment, because it has not been tabled yet. It cannot be considered by the Committee until it has been tabled and two days' notice given. You made that absolutely clear, Mrs. Roe, and I should have thought that it was now obvious to everybody.
 I have tried to help the Committee by being totally transparent in what I am doing and by trying to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test to pursue a constructive course that will meet his earlier suggestions in a more elegant way. I thought that I was helping the Committee, and that that would be welcomed by Opposition Members. I am disappointed by their response, but I shall 
 continue to try to help the Committee, despite their strictures.

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I wonder whether I may seek your guidance. Please forgive my ignorance, but some of these amendments to which I have put my name—amendments Nos. 137 to 173, and 117 to 130—do not relate directly to clause 8, but are follow-on amendments. Would it be possible, as a matter of procedure, for my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and me to withdraw our amendments and retable them later, if we so choose?

Marion Roe: I have sought guidance on that and I have been told that, yes, it will be possible for you to withdraw them and resubmit them.

Rob Marris: Thank you very much, Mrs. Roe.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. Could I ask whether the Minister intends to be as helpful to proposals from Opposition Members as he has been to proposals from his hon. Friends? If he can say that he will be, I am sure that we shall all be pleased with his help, but we shall need to have proof of it later.

Marion Roe: That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Alun Michael: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I always seek to be helpful to everybody? He must have noticed that over the last nine months, the process that has brought us to the Bill has been open and transparent and has involved all sides in the discussion. I listen to all sorts of people. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has referred to the issue of ground-nesting birds and predation. Today I met the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to deal with issues of that kind and to hear its concerns. I am happy to listen to Opposition Members' concerns, as I was when the hon. Gentleman raised a serious point. I shall seek to be helpful to all members of the Committee.

Alan Whitehead: I must say that if I were on trial for my life, I would be rather worried if I were defended by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
 As I said in my opening remarks, this series of amendments pivots on clause 8, and in particular, on clause 8(1). Therefore, the other amendments in the group are consequential. Your procedural ruling, Mrs. Roe, suggests that were amendment No. 131 to be withdrawn, although discussion about it and the consequent amendments has taken place today, the other amendments could subsequently be considered as having been moved formally, to see what impact clause 8(1) has on the rest of the Bill. There are two ways in which that could, in principle, be done. The first is by withdrawing all the amendments and re-moving them.

Marion Roe: Only one has been moved.

Alan Whitehead: Yes. Alternatively, I could regard your ruling as the proper way forward, Mrs. Roe. Although the debate has taken place today, the consequential amendments could be moved formally
 when we reach the relevant clauses. That seems to me a useful way forward.
 We have been keen to bring philosophers and thinkers into the debate so far. I am sad that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal is not in his place. I thought that I would introduce to the Committee the famous saying by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said, in ''Philosophical Investigations'', ''Don't look for the meaning, look for the use''. What he meant by that was that if one takes a broom apart and look at the brush, the head and the stick, one will not have a broom; if one sees the broom in action, one will understand what a broom is. It is relevant when we are considering the questions ''What is a pest?'' and ''What is pest control?'' to look at what pests do rather than at what they are. That is the point of the amendment. 
 Pests, as we have already established in our discussions, are not always pests. Indeed, as the hon. Member for St. Ives helpfully said, wild animals may be predators, and there are circumstances in which they will become pests and circumstances in which they are neither predators nor pests—but they are not pests per se. They are pests or not, depending on the impact that what they do has on human activity. I seek to clarify the Bill to ensure that clause 8(1) deals with pest control. 
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is not in his place—I know that he has other pressing concerns—spoke this morning about the effect of the subsection on the recreational aspect of hunting. My duty is to table amendments to the Bill, and it is up to hon. Members—I see that their amendments Nos. 110 and 113 are on the amendment paper—to table amendments that will change the nature of clause 8(1). At that stage we would have to consider the consequences of any change, but as the debate stands we cannot do that, as no such provisions are in the Bill. 
 However, we cannot simply separate the various emotions. The idea that people in pursuit of pest control must be certified as deriving no pleasure from it is something that even the best legislative draftsmen could not take into account. The fact that clause 8 predominantly refers to pest control does not rule out the possibility that someone might receive some recreational pleasure from pest control activities. 
 I should say a few words about the interesting concept described by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—that species maintenance is an activity of hunting, in addition to pest control. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest—perhaps he would nod or shake his head to confirm or deny whether my understanding is correct—that one of the purposes of hunting is to eliminate weaker, more poorly and mange-ridden animals from the fox population, and that that contributes to animal welfare by producing a fox population that is more vibrant. He said that the fox population in Wiltshire is very vibrant compared to those in other areas of the country, where foxes are more sickly, poorly and mangy.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is indeed right. One of the important purposes of hunting using dogs is
 improvement of the hunted species. Where there is sensibly organised and sensibly managed hunting using dogs, there is a larger and healthier population than where that does not take place.

Alan Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that, which was my understanding of what he said. I am puzzled, because he claims that foxhunting has two purposes: pest control and maintenance of the species.

James Gray: There are many more than two.

Alan Whitehead: He mentioned two in particular this morning. I draw his attention to the logical problem in that. If the species is improved in the way described by the hon. Gentleman, the outcome will be a race of super-foxes who will be particularly adept at raiding hen houses and stealing eggs, and will be greater pests.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman's argument is the most extraordinary I have yet heard. Is he not aware that in the country a fox that stalks a farm and takes livestock is likely to be manage-ridden or injured and unable to catch prey in the wild, so it is forced into towns, on to farms or to take lambs?

Alan Whitehead: I am not entirely sure what detailed evidence the hon. Gentleman has in support of that proposal. In general, the consequence of attempting to make the intellectual point that maintenance of a species is allied to pest control is that the result of species maintenance activity is to produce a fox population that is more adept as a pest than would otherwise be the case. Perhaps hon. Members have not seen the logical connection, but I ask them to reflect on that and consider the outcome of their argument.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is raising an interesting point and he is right. We are advocating suitable species management using dogs, as a result of which the species would be improved by small degrees. The notion that that would somehow result in a huge improvement in the species with super-foxes that are extra good at catching chickens is absurd.
 More interesting is the fact that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West this morning, that whether foxes are young, old, healthy, disabled, injured or whatever, they all deserve equally to be kept alive or to be killed. Surely there is an argument that there is a good reason for taking out foxes that are less healthy.

Alan Whitehead: I have tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments on fox eugenics carefully, but he seems to have shifted his position significantly. He now seems to be saying that the effect on species welfare is not actually as great as he claimed earlier this morning. Several of his claims seem now to be inaccurate.

Michael Foster: My hon. Friend is shooting down the Opposition's arguments as they raise them. In discussing the type of wildlife management that they advocate, the Opposition have ignored a practice known as cub hunting, sometimes referred to as autumn hunting, in which younger foxes are hunted.
 The death accounted for by that type of hunting is apparently 40 per cent. of the total fox deaths associated with hunting with dogs. How does hunting young foxes fit into the argument that only old and lame foxes are sought by the dogs?

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that very interesting point. Presumably it is difficult to assess the relative health of cubs—other than the fact that they cannot run very fast either.

Nicholas Soames: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman, because he is grasping at a perfectly sensible point. The result of hunting in a well run, well regulated hunting area is that weak and sick foxes are killed very quickly, the population of foxes is far more widely dispersed—for example, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned that 2,700 foxes were killed in Wandsworth, presumably because they were predators and pests—and the species is healthy and strong. The net result of hunting in well run hunting country is part of the management of the countryside, something that the Government are not only interested in but keen to support and promote, according to the Minister.

Alan Whitehead: I thoroughly understand the hon. Gentleman's comment. Indeed, I was not disputing that central argument but pointing out gently to Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, the difficulty of allying that argument with arguments about pest control and recreation; a circularity is involved. It is difficult to make all those cases at the same time in attempting to defend foxhunting.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman is one of the more intellectually able members of the Committee, so it is distressing to hear him get his argument so wrong. He needs to understand that foxhunting serves different purposes in different parts of the country. Even in one part of the country there can be different objectives. The argument is subtle and complex. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Lord Burns said about paradox and urge him to reflect on the fact that his argument is fundamentally wrong.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has heard me acknowledge that there are different circumstances in different parts of the country where hunting is more prevalent or less prevalent. The point that I was attempting to make—Opposition Members appear not to have noticed it—relates to the contribution of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who specifically emphasised that there were different purposes for different hunts in different parts of the country. He claimed that the fox population is healthier and more bushy-tailed and bright-eyed where hunting is substantially prevalent than where it is not. He made the point that hunting takes place in different forms in different parts of the country, but that where it takes place in a particular form in a particular part of the country, that is the outcome.
 It seems that a circularity is involved in the hon. Gentleman's argument about maintaining the fox population. However, I am not sure that it is a 
 genuine circularity, because it seems that Opposition Members are not able to take any of that on board.

James Gray: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. He is in a muddle because he presumes that the words ''pest control'' mean killing as many foxes as possible to reduce the population as much as possible. My position is the opposite. Pest control involves taking out pesky foxes in certain conditions, and those conditions differ, not only in different parts of the country, but in the hunting country itself. In one place one might be taking out difficult foxes that are a danger to chickens, while in another place one might be helping the population to be healthy. A well managed fox population means less pest control is necessary. The two work extremely well together.

Alan Whitehead: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman took careful note of my earlier response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He queried what I meant by ''pest control''.

Peter Luff: It was very helpful.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman says that it was a helpful response. I do not believe that pest control involves exterminating all the specimens of a particular species in a particular area. One controls the pests. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has stated, animals will be predators, but they only may be pests. The two ideas are not synonymous. I was attempting to make the point that if one elides the concept of pest control with that of species management, one enters into circularity. One can argue for pest control, for species management or for recreation. It is a little dangerous and inadvisable, however, to argue for all three at the same time.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an optimum sustainable level of foxes in any given piece of country, given that the fox has no natural predator? At times the fox population may rise above that number. If foxes are shot or trapped indiscriminately, with no knowledge of the wider numbers being shot or trapped, that number can fall drastically below the optimum level.

Alan Whitehead: My understanding of the nature of pest control is that that is what happens when pest control is undertaken, and why I emphasise that the word to be used is control. If there is a variation in the fox population, or there are particular circumstances in which foxes are becoming a pest, it is proper and right that measures should be taken to control foxes where they are pests. I continue fully to support that.

Edward Garnier: Do I follow from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not rule out the possibility that hunting with hounds is an effective and useful means of pest control?

Alan Whitehead: What appears to have eluded the hon. and learned Gentleman—this is what I think, as well as what the Bill states—is that there will be circumstances in which it is necessary to deal with foxes that have become pests. The Bill says that one has to apply two tests. One must establish first, whether those circumstances exist, and secondly, whether the least cruel method of dealing with those
 circumstances is countenanced. Those two tests are in the Bill, and I would imagine that those who wish to carry out pest control using dogs—for example, with two dogs and two guns—would have to satisfy a tribunal that those two tests had been carried out in order to undertake pest control using dogs. That is what my amendment is about.

Edward Garnier: We can all read the Bill. We know what the Government intend clause 8 to mean. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman, who has proposed the amendments, precludes pest control by an organised hunt using 10 or 20 couple of hounds to control pests: foxes.

Alan Whitehead: I cannot think of circumstances in which a large number of people with a large number of hounds would assemble in order to undertake pest control in accordance with the provisions of clause 8. It is extremely unlikely that such circumstances would come to pass. I can envisage circumstances in which two dogs and two guns could be used for the purposes of pest control, and therefore hunting with dogs, if it were for the purposes of pest control, in those circumstances, would be something that the tribunal could consider. That is evident.

Edward Garnier: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument means that if someone were to advance the case that using a pack of hounds—forget the followers—is a perfectly efficacious way of controlling the pest, or fox, hunting as it is currently exercised should be allowed to continue. Otherwise the hon. Gentleman's argument simply boils down to a prejudice against people going hunting.

Alan Whitehead: The purpose of my amendments, as I have said to the hon. and learned Gentleman, is to make it clear that after the Bill is enacted, hunting foxes—or perhaps I should say pursuing and killing foxes—with hounds will take place only for the purpose of pest control. The tribunal would not consider hunting for recreational purposes or simply for fun. That is the present position. Some amendments attempt to widen the number of things that could be brought before the tribunal in order—

Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Whitehead: I would like to make some brief progress. I appear to have stunned Opposition Members. Some amendments seek to broaden the number of things that the tribunal should consider. My answer to that, as the Bill presently stands, before those amendments have been discussed, is no; the idea of hunting purely for recreational purposes is not in the Bill and the tribunal would not consider it.

Edward Garnier: I return to an intervention that I made at the outset of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, before the morning Adjournment. What happens when there is a dual intention? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that so long as I do not enjoy hunting and am just controlling a pest, I can pursue that activity, but the moment a smile crosses my face—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister to chunter, but he should listen for a time. It seems that so long as I do not enjoy what I am doing, and my purpose is just pest control, I can get away with it, but the moment I have a dual purpose, I cannot. Is that right?

Alan Whitehead: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the comments that I made at the beginning of my speech about my fears were I to be on trial for my life. After I made that comment, I specifically pointed out that one cannot absolutely separate out the emotions of someone engaged in pest control. I have not for a moment suggested that one can engage in pest control, with or without dogs or guns, only if one does not regard it as a recreation or get any pleasure from it. Under the Bill, as I understand it, the primary purpose that would be considered by the tribunal relates to pest control. That is why I have tabled amendments that indicate that that is the case. I hoped to elucidate matters for the Committee—on the evidence of this afternoon's discussion, some members of the Committee desperately need matters to be elucidated.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) shot himself in the foot when he was talking about the optimum sustainable level for foxes? Unless we are talking about pest control by the sorts of methods that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test mentioned, we are talking, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire does, about pest control by species management. That sort of pest control tends to breed super-foxes, which will be more of a pest and take more chickens.

Alan Whitehead: That is an important point, and I have already emphasised it.

Gregory Barker: Can any Labour Members give me an example of one of these überfoxes? Have they had sight of them?

Alan Whitehead: Mrs. Roe, I am rapidly running out of suitable parliamentary derogatives to describe the lack of attention paid to the debate by certain members of the Committee. One does not have to observe an überfox in action to infer from what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that that can happen if one carries out a combination of pest control and species management in the way that he describes. One cannot ask hon. Members to measure the spring, stride, bushiness of the tail and bright-eyedness of foxes to sustain that argument.

Andrew George: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to what I understood to be the nub of the point that he is probing, which was contained in a phrase that he used earlier? He said that he could not conceive of circumstances where a hunt can provide necessary pest control that cannot be provided by another means. It would be helpful if hon. Members on all sides of the argument focused on that issue. I hope that, if not in this debate, in a future debate, pro-hunting and other hon. Members will give us the benefit of their knowledge of the subject, which goes to the heart of the issue. Are there circumstances in which the only form of humane pest control can be provided by the kind of hunting that is currently widespread? My experience is largely of lowland hunts, and I cannot conceive, as the hon. Gentleman said, of using that in all circumstances.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I shall give the hon. Member for Southampton, Test a chance to think about his response to that.
 It will be helpful to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman indicates soon whether he will press his amendment. Mrs. Roe, I am concerned about an issue that I discussed briefly with your predecessor in the Chair after our last sitting. If the amendment were passed, that could preclude discussions on the utility test later in our consideration of the Bill. Therefore, I seek an assurance either that the amendment will not be pressed, in which case the issue does not arise, or, if it is to be pressed and incorporated in the Bill, that we can still have the debate on utility, which this debate is now becoming.

Marion Roe: That is not a point of order for me, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Peter Luff: With respect, Mrs. Roe, I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I am anxious to know whether passing the amendment would preclude the debate on utility. That is a point of order.

Marion Roe: I very much regret that I cannot answer hypothetical questions. I am in the hands of the Committee, and all I have to do is make sure that the amendment is in order. I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

Alan Whitehead: To respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for St. Ives, that is right. We are debating what is at the heart of clause 8. Indeed, clause 8 is the heart of the Bill, which is why it is appropriate to discuss the Bill in this order. Therefore, we are discussing issues that are central to hunting. I expect later amendments to draw out that argument. I have made a modest attempt to elucidate the purposes of the Bill by looking at its architecture. I believe that clause 8 is essentially about pest control. That is why my amendments have been tabled in the way that they have.
 To be helpful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, I have been attempting to sit down for a long time, having told you, Mrs. Roe, what I wished to do about the amendment. However, unfortunately I have been waylaid on the way to the denouement by a series of interesting side-paths and interventions. 
 I should be happy to seek to withdraw amendment No. 131, with a view to looking at the alternative wording that has been helpfully circulated and which I believe could be tabled after circulation, on the understanding that amendment No. 131 relates to clause 8 and that consequential amendments can be dealt with formally when they arise. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.
 Amendment negatived.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Am I right in my understanding that, because no Member chose to vote for the amendment, and because we voted against, the amendments in the group have now been voted down? Is that correct?

Marion Roe: No, you are incorrect. It is only amendment No. 131 that was put to the Committee and on which a vote was taken.

Alan Whitehead: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I seek clarification. I sought leave to withdraw amendment No. 131. That was disputed, and a vote was taken on that amendment. Am I right in saying that the other amendments are not thereby affected because that was a specific motion to withdraw amendment No. 131?

Marion Roe: No decision has been taken on the other amendments. If you listened, you will have heard that I only put the first amendment, No. 131. That is how we operate. We consider other amendments at the same time but only actually vote on the amendment that was moved.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in
clause 8, page 3, line 11, after 'hunting', insert 'or coursing'.
 We have argued consistently that the intellectual coherence and validity of the Bill is badly flawed in various ways. One particular flaw is that, despite the advice of everyone taking part in the Portcullis house consultations that every species of hunted animal should be similarly considered through the application of the utility and cruelty tests, the Minister has chosen to produce a rather artificial division whereby rabbiting and ratting are allowed and stag hunting and hare coursing are by definition excluded. The amendment seeks to insert the words ''or coursing'' into clause 8 to correct that fundamental misunderstanding.

Alun Michael: Given that we are being so careful with language, will the hon. Gentleman be careful about what he says? He has suggested that there is inconsistency, but I have made it clear that it is the application of the same principles that leads to the conclusion that it would be inappropriate to allow the registrar and the tribunal to consider the options that he has mentioned. The application of the principles is exactly the same; it is the consideration of the evidence that is different.

James Gray: The Minister makes an extraordinary point—that the principles have been applied not in public, and not by the registrar or tribunal. No consideration has been given to evidence, or to the individual circumstances of different hunts in different parts of the country. He has applied the utility and cruelty principles in the privacy of his room, without telling anybody why, and included the result in the Bill. He says that there is incontrovertible evidence behind his conclusions, but has still not told us what that is. All that we are seeking is consistency in the application of the two tests to all three groups of mammals, which was the exact advice given to us in Portcullis house.
 That the Minister has come to those conclusions in the privacy of his room, and that he will not listen to anybody else because he has decided that he is going to ban stag hunting and hare coursing, which the amendment relates to, is a curious form of arrogance and ignores the advice that he was given. The Minister says that everything has been done very publicly and 
 openly, but the fact that he has chosen to act in that way is an extraordinary insight into his thinking. 
 The amendment would allow hare coursing to be considered alongside all other forms of hunting. Sharp-eyed readers of the Bill will have noticed a curiosity in its long title, which singles out hare coursing, as if that were something quite different from hunting with dogs. The long title does not mention stag hunting but merely singles out hare coursing as being additional to hunting. When we dealt with the order of consideration on the Programming Sub-Committee, I raised that issue informally with advisers, and they told me something very interesting. They said that we could perfectly legitimately discuss stag hunting under our consideration of clause 8 because it was a form of hunting. However, I was informally advised that it would be out of order for us to discuss hare coursing under that clause because it was not hunting. 
 That is an insight into a curious error on the part of the Government and the Minister. When I asked why hare coursing was not considered to be hunting, I was told that the view was taken that hare coursing meant public, organised events subject to an entrance fee, at which the dogs were pitted one against the other using a hare as bait. It was said that that was quite different from hunting, and that it had no utility at all, so it should be banned outright. 
 That informal exchange gives an interesting insight into the fog of ignorance and prejudice that lies behind so much of the Bill. The Minister apparently does not realise that. He is busy looking up a reference, so he can quote something or other to me. The truth is that the word ''coursing'' means using dogs to hunt by sight, whereas the word ''hunting'' means using hounds, not dogs, to hunt using smell. There is a difference between dogs and hounds, which is why the Bill is inaccurate in its use of the word ''dogs''.

Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out the fact that coursing is not hunting.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Coursing is not hunting. There is a difference. Before he comes back to that point, I add that often hounds hunting deer or fox will course. It will often be said that a hunt was not particularly good because the hounds were coursing. They could see the fox and chased it by sight and not by smell. The view is taken that that is less sporting than hunting them by smell. In considering whether a particular practice is reasonable and sensible using the application of the tests of cruelty and utility, hare coursing is hunting the hare by sight, just as much as fox coursing, which often happens during a fox hunt, is hunting. Therefore, the two should be considered together.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has referred on a couple of occasions to the letters that I sent to hon. Members to consult them before the preparation of the Bill. I am grateful to know that he has kept copies. He did not respond to the point, but if he examines the letter that I sent in May, he will see that I said then, giving notice:
''Legal advice is that the activity of hare coursing is not technically hunting with dogs because the object of the activity is to assess the speed, stamina and agility of the dogs and not to kill the hare. It appears that without special provision, hare coursing would therefore not be addressed by legislation regulating hunting with dogs.''
 I went on to raise the question that the hon. Gentleman could have responded to several months ago. I said: 
''There would be two ways of dealing with hare coursing if it were decided to legislate. The definition of hunting with dogs could be widened to include hare coursing. In this case the tests of utility and cruelty would be applied to the activity. Alternatively, the Bill could introduce a specific ban on hare coursing.''
 I continued with several questions on which I sought evidence. 
 The hon. Gentleman refers to a variety of colloquial uses, or misuses, of the word ''hunting'', which arose during the discussions in Portcullis house. I made it clear then, reinforcing the points that I have just quoted, that I was using the definition of coursing that I was legally advised to use. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman in understanding what he is doing in proposing the amendment.

James Gray: The Minister's extremely lengthy intervention does not help at all. I have discussed the matter with those who drafted the Bill, and they tend to agree with me that they were not entirely clear about the legal advice on the matter. The word ''coursing'' when referring to what happens with long dogs means hunting by sight rather than by smell. The Minister is making a mistake in that competitive coursing, which takes place at Altcar and elsewhere, are large, competitive events, rather like horse racing, when two dogs chase a hare, but most coursing has nothing to do with organised participatory events such as that. Most coursing occurs with an individual taking two dogs out and chasing a hare with them.

Alun Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not deliberately misunderstanding the point, but there may be a difference in the way in which language is used in terms of the activity or behaviour of the dogs in different circumstances. He refers to dogs coursing, which is a reasonable colloquial expression, but the point is that it is what the people are doing that the Bill seeks to regulate. The people using the dogs are either hunting a fox or coursing the dogs in competition. In a coursing competition, people are not hunting, although the dogs may be.
 The English language is quite clear in that regard and the legal advice that I was given was shared with the hon. Gentleman as long ago as May.

James Gray: The legal advice was indeed shared with me as long ago as May, which is why I have been looking forward to raising the matter with the Minister in the Committee. The point is that, under the Bill as drafted, coursing as carried out by most people—they go out individually on their own land with two dogs to chase a hare and to see which dog catches the hare first—would be allowed. All that is
 being banned under the Bill is organised, competitive coursing; it would be banned under clause 1. Coursing using long dogs to catch hares is not being banned and I am rather surprised that, having received the legal advice the Minister told us about, he has not realised that flaw in the Bill.
 There is a curious perversity about trying to ban organised, competitive hare coursing, which brings us back to some of the comments by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) this morning, who is not present to hear these comments. The perversity is that one of the fundamental purposes in hare coursing is to avoid killing hares, and people go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Around 200 hares are killed every year during organised coursing events and it is estimated that around 30,000 would be killed by sports shooters—the Minister is all in favour of shooting—were it not for the existence of coursing. The point of coursing is to reduce the small number of hares killed each year. If competitive hare coursing were banned, which is what the Minister wants, a significantly larger number of hares would be killed.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up his terminology. He referred to coursing with long dogs, which is hunting, so it would need to be registered under the Bill.

James Gray: The Minister makes my point for me. In singling out competitive coursing and saying that it is different from ordinary coursing using long dogs, he is choosing to ban those organised events, particularly in the north of England, where a large number of spectators pay an entrance fee to watch coursing. One of the fundamental principles of those organised events is that they try not to kill hares. In the sort of coursing that he described with an individual using two long dogs, the purpose is often to kill the hare. Hare shooting is a popular sport, which takes place to a significant degree on the continent and to a lesser degree here. The Government are apparently all in favour of shooting these days and if hare shooting were to replace organised, competitive hare coursing, it is estimated that some 30,000 hares would be killed each year instead of the 200 that are killed in competitive coursing. The perversity is that banning competitive coursing would involve more cruelty to hares because many more would be injured and wounded and there would be a large increase in the number of hares killed.
 The hon. Member for Brent made an interesting point this morning.

Edward Garnier: Brent?

James Gray: The hon. Member was here briefly, but has now disappeared again.

Several hon. Members: West Ham.

James Gray: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was the leader of Brent borough council in the old days, which is why I was confused. [Interruption.] The point is that he is not in Committee despite his commitment to the issue. This morning, he said that he is not happy about coarse fishing because it involves killing, but if it could be demonstrated that it did not involve killing he might be persuaded on it. He also said that the great
 thing about coarse fishing is that there is no intention to kill, although on some occasions the fish may be killed. That is precisely the same as hare coursing. The intention in hare coursing is not to kill, and those who participate in it go out of their way to avoid killing. As a result, a very small number of hares are killed in competitive hare coursing. If competitive hare coursing were banned, far more hares would be killed by shooting.

Colin Pickthall: If there is no intention to kill a hare, which I do not believe, why are the dogs not muzzled in England, as they are in Northern Ireland?

James Gray: That point has often been raised in the past. The answer is that the dogs would not hunt if they were muzzled. There is no question about it: there is no intention to kill the hare, which is something that the Minister has admitted on a number of occasions. In a written ministerial statement on 19 December 2002, he said:
''Hare coursing is also banned absolutely because the intention of the activity is to test the speed and agility of dogs and not to control hare numbers.''—[Official Report, 19 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 77WS.]
 On 9 January 2003, he said: 
''Hare coursing is about comparing the speed and agility of the dogs, not catching an animal or pest. Catching may take place and suffering might be involved in that, but that is not the purpose of the activity.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 9 January 2003; c. 120.]
 The purpose of individual hare coursing and beagling, which is chasing hares with hounds, is to kill. The Minister would abolish hare coursing and replace it with something the purpose of which would be to kill.

Mark Tami: It is not true to say that muzzled dogs do not kill hares. If a muzzled dog catches a hare, rather than ripping it to pieces it will hit it with its head and claw it. That process kills some hares, while those that are injured are allowed to escape.

James Gray: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining to the Minister why there is no particular purpose to muzzling dogs.

Mark Tami: It should not be allowed.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that hare coursing should not be allowed, which is what the Bill will do. If, thanks to the Bill, organised competitive hare coursing were banned, unorganised private hare coursing would still be legal under registration if one could show the utility in the activity. More importantly, the competitive shooting of hares will certainly be legal. Indeed, the Government have gone to some lengths to say how much they support shooting. If competitive hare coursing is banned, it will be replaced by the competitive shooting of hares. We estimate that that will result in the deaths of 30,000 hares a year, many of which will be wounded, compared with the deaths of 200 hares a year by competitive coursing.

Peter Luff: As my hon. Friend knows, I have some reservations about hare coursing. When I inquired about the possibility of muzzling dogs, I learned that because of the weight ratio between a dog and a hare,
 muzzling dogs could lead to hares being seriously injured and escaping. The animal welfare consequences of muzzling dogs could be bad. I do not know the merits of that argument, but I find it inherently credible, and those who advocate the muzzling of dogs should bear it in mind.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes the same point as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). They want competitive hare coursing to be banned, but hare coursing in the United Kingdom would be legal under the Bill, which is curious.

Eric Martlew: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. He says that the objective of hare coursing is not to kill the hare. My understanding of the sport, which is not great, is that dogs get points for certain manoeuvres. Can he confirm that they get a point when they kill the hare?

James Gray: On average, in organised coursing events, the hare escapes in about 40 seconds, according to Burns. They have a very short run before they escape. It is correct that points are given, but we are not discussing the purpose behind the activity.
Mr. Martlew rose—

James Gray: No, I am sorry. I cannot keep giving way for not very useful interventions.
 There was unanimity in our discussions at Portcullis house that we should discuss not the human reason for taking part in a particular activity but animal welfare only. Therefore, the reason why people bet on running dogs or horses or engage in any other such activity is not of concern to us. The Minister has often said that the purpose of the Bill is animal welfare. We should work out a way to reduce cruelty, if it exists, and seek to ensure the least possible suffering for a species. 
 My point is that at present 200 hares are killed. In organised coursing, they are killed very efficiently, within 40 seconds of the start of their run. 
Mr. Martlew rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman might give me an opportunity to make my point instead of leaping to his feet all the time.
 If organised hare coursing were banned, a significantly larger number of hares would be killed, and by a far worse method. The aspects of human determination and dogs getting points, to which the hon. Gentleman seems to object, would no longer apply. None the less, far more hares would be killed.

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

James Gray: I would rather not. I understand that we will return to the subject of hare coursing in a substantive debate on part 1. [Interruption.] Do not worry—I am not winding up yet.
 We are considering whether the tests of utility and cruelty should apply as much to hare coursing as to any other activity. The substantive discussion as to whether hare coursing is a good, bad or indifferent activity is something to which we shall return during discussions on part 1. The important principle of the amendment is that it is not all right for the Minister to 
 decide himself, without consulting anyone else, that hare coursing is by definition a bad thing and should be banned. 
Alun Michael rose—

James Gray: I will give way in a moment, if the Minister would not mind containing himself.
 It is our intention that hare coursing, stag hunting, ratting and rabbiting should be included under the joint tests of utility and cruelty, as the scientists unanimously advised. It is a bizarre exemption and intellectual gap in the Bill that they are not.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the words ''without consulting anyone''? I have consulted everyone, including the hon. Gentleman. The fact that he did not bother to respond to this part of the questions, which I put to him and every Member of the House in May, does not allow him to make that sort of unjustified comment.

James Gray: My point was not so much that the Minister did not consult anyone. If I offended him by saying that, perhaps I hit a raw nerve. He is very keen to say how much he has consulted everyone.
 My point is very important. The Minister has argued consistently that the tribunal and the registrar ought to consider the activity and apply to it the twin tests—the sequential tests, if the Minister prefers—of utility and cruelty. That is the central part of the Bill. It is not about banning, as were previous Bills. The Minister could have come back with a Bill to ban, had he wished, but he decided against that. He chose to say that the activities would be considered by application of the twin tests of cruelty and utility. 
 It is not the Government who will apply the tests. Instead, they have set up a procedure, which will be discussed later under clause 2. It is a complicated procedure using registrars, tribunals and appeals to the High Court to consider whether the tests should be applied to a variety of different activities involving mink, hare, foxes and the rest. 
 The Government are setting up complex machinery, as they will not make the decisions. The Minister keeps saying that he does not want a list of things to ban but a procedure under which activities can be considered by using the tests. Despite all that, and after wide consultation, no doubt, with all kinds of people from the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so on, he has decided to ban hare coursing and deer hunting. 
 We say that there is an intellectual illogicality at the heart of the Bill. We do not believe that the Bill is worth much, but if it is to have any worth at all, it must apply the tests of utility and cruelty to all hunted species.

Alun Michael: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop replying to every comment from a Government Member that he has said something untrue by saying that he has touched a raw nerve. His approach is offensive, and I wish that he would listen to the interventions.
 Can the hon. Gentleman help the Committee by giving an example of coursing that has utility under clause 8(1)? I would be very interested if he could, because the tests in the Bill are straightforward. They have been known throughout the long-drawn-out and transparent process in which everyone, including the hon. Gentleman, had an opportunity to comment. Let us have one example from him of utility through coursing.

James Gray: The Minister challenges me to give an example of utility through coursing. If it were not the case that there could be utility through coursing, why would ordinary coursing, leaving aside competition coursing, come under this part of the Bill? Although the Minister has laid down that the registrar and tribunal should decide whether there is utility in coursing, he has decided that there is not.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

James Gray: I apologise for being in the wrong place at the wrong moment. Before winding up my remarks, I want to make a couple of quick points correcting some things that were discussed earlier. First, I am informed that no points are awarded for kills under rules for organised hare coursing in England. Secondly, the difference between hare coursing as a sport in England and hare coursing as a sport in Northern Ireland, where muzzles are used, is that in Northern Ireland it is a closed course and dogs and hares cannot escape, whereas in England it is an open sport and dogs and hares can escape and run wherever they like. Therefore using muzzles in England would be inappropriate and, in some circumstances, rather cruel.

Alun Michael: I am interested by the remark that the hon. Gentleman made about points not being awarded in the event of a dog catching a hare. Lord Burns, working with the information that was given to him, was under the impression that they are awarded. Paragraph 2.54 of his report states:
''A maximum of one point is awarded in the event of a dog catching a hare.''

James Gray: All I can suggest is that Lord Burns might like to consult the chairman of the coursing associations in England and Wales, who told me earlier, during the break, that that is incorrect.
Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne) rose—

James Gray: If the hon. Lady will sit down for a second, I might give way to her in a moment. The chairman told me that no points are awarded for killing.
Alun Michael rose—
Ms Atherton rose—

James Gray: I will give way to the Minister first. I do not want to leave the hon. Lady out, so I will return to her. The Minister should go first, as he is a right hon. Member.

Alun Michael: There is a list of all the organisations that Lord Burns consulted, and I understood that the coursing associations were included. It may be that things have changed.

James Gray: There is no purpose in arguing about what is a straightforward, verifiable fact.

Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: If the hon. Lady will hang on for a jiffy, I will give way to her in a moment. There is no point in arguing about what is an entirely straightforward and verifiable fact. Anyone who drops into Altcar can find out whether points are awarded for a kill. I am reliably informed that that is not the case. If there has been an error, I am sure that we can easily put it to rest. The hon. Lady is keen to tell me all about it.

Candy Atherton: According to a national coursing organisation, not more than one point is awarded only if the dog achieves the kill through superior dash and skill and without the help of the other runner.

James Gray: Perhaps this is not the occasion to go into too much detail about the nature of coursing—[Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members like to laugh all the time; I was just about to say that the hon. Lady may well have a good point. I am not an expert on the rules of coursing, and for all I know it may well be that a point is awarded for speed. However, the point is not awarded for making the kill. It is not that a dog gets a point if it kills and does not get a point if it does not kill; points are awarded for speed.
 The important point about the amendment is not that it enables us to discuss the rights, wrongs and indifferences of hare coursing in general. We will have the opportunity to do that in what I hope will be a reasonably substantial debate under part 1 of the Bill. 
 The purpose of the amendment is not to argue about whether hare coursing is good, bad or indifferent. It has two aims. First, it seeks to highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of the word ''coursing'', which has been exposed by the Government's drafting of the long title of the Bill. Secondly, it allows us to question the Minister about why coursing—the chasing of hares using long dogs, to define it precisely—will be allowed by registration under part 2 of the Bill but coursing using long dogs to chase hares in organised competitions will not be allowed under part 1. The Minister has sought to explain that by saying that he, in his wisdom, believes that there is no utility and some cruelty in the latter, but not in the former. That argument seems to me to be devoid of any intellectual coherence, and I am sure that we shall return to it.

Peter Luff: The Minister challenged my hon. Friend over the utility of hare coursing. I repeat that I am not an enormous admirer of the sport of hare coursing. However, we must admit that only a very modest amendment to the Minister's utility test—and perhaps none at all—would prove that hare coursing has utility, especially when we consider clause 8(1)(h), which refers to an area's biodiversity. There is no doubt that coursing events encourage owners to provide a habitat for hares. That probably also
 conserves hares and prevents landowners from shooting large numbers of them to stop poachers entering their land. There is utility in hare coursing: whether that utility is adequate is a larger debate, but it is probably wrong to say that there is none.

James Gray: My hon. Friend tempts me to stray down the interesting route of discussing whether hare coursing has utility. However, I repeat that to discuss that is not the purpose of the amendment. Hare coursing may or may not have utility, but we shall have plenty of opportunity to debate that when we discuss the substantive issue under part 1. This amendment seeks to point out to the Minister that there is intellectual incoherence in not including hare coursing under the cruelty and utility tests.
 We want the registrar and tribunal to have an opportunity to examine hare coursing, including organised competitive hare coursing such as the Waterloo cup, and to decide whether it is cruel and whether it has utility. The hon. Member for West Ham argued that there was utility in coarse fishing, which sought not to kill. Precisely the same may be said of competitive coursing. The purpose of non-competitive coursing is to kill the hare, but competitive coursing aims to avoid killing it, so we believe that the registrar and tribunal should have the opportunity to form a view on it, as well as on stag hunting, ratting and rabbiting. 
 There is a massive intellectual incoherence at the heart of the Bill. If there is to be any justification for the cruelty and utility tests, we must do what the scientists unanimously advised us to do in Portcullis house: apply those tests to all categories of mammal. By singling out competitive hare coursing—the Waterloo cup—the Minister is exposing his worst prejudices.

Colin Pickthall: I should like to take this opportunity to have a preliminary pop at hare coursing, although I understand that we will talk about it in greater detail later, under part 1.
 I represent Altcar, so the Waterloo cup takes place in my constituency. I have been there many times, both as a guest of the organisers and as one of the protesters on the public road outside. Clearly, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister has constructed a Bill that bans hare coursing completely by including it in part 1. The amendment's attempt to put it into part 2 flies in the face of what is at the centre of the Bill: the concept of utility. I leave cruelty aside for the moment. 
 Hare numbers in this country are under pressure and have been for some time. A biodiversity action plan is in place to try to increase the number of hares in England. Therefore, there can be no possible accusation that the hare is a pest or that there is any utility in coursing the animal. I realise that some Opposition Members have trouble with that idea. If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire read the Hansard report of the debate this morning, he would see that in the same sentence he said that hares are a pest and that they are not a pest.

Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the number of
 hares in the country, does he admit that it is curious to wish to ban hare coursing when only about 200 hares are killed each year in that way? Every survey that has been conducted shows that about 30,000 hares will be shot by farmers if coursing is banned.

Colin Pickthall: I simply do not believe that figure. I have never heard a farmer in my area, which is a good area for hares, complain that hares were a pest or caused them any trouble.

Mike Hall: Will my hon. Friend educate me, because I do not know the answer to this question? Are the hares that are coursed at Altcar caught and released for the course, or are they living wild in the area and just chased on the day?

Colin Pickthall: A large number of hares are protected by the estates on which the Waterloo cup is held. They are preserved for coursing. In years when hares have been in short supply, and there have been a few, they are trapped elsewhere and imported. Over the years, they have been imported from Ireland, East Anglia, Leicestershire and other parts of the country. It depends on whether the gamekeeper believes that there are enough hares on his territory to satisfy customers at the coursing event.

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman referred to ''a few''. I know very little about hare coursing. Could he quantify that few in relation to the last 10 or 20 years?

Colin Pickthall: I assume the hon. Gentleman is asking how many years it has been necessary to import hares. In the last 10 years I would guess three—something like that.

Peter Luff: In our earlier debates, the hon. Member for St. Ives made a helpful distinction between pests and predation. Hares have the potential to become serious pests. I think that five hares eat as much as a sheep, or something like that, so a hare can take a serious amount of agricultural crop and also damage trees.
 Farmers are often prepared to tolerate predation and pests at a certain level as long as there is some control, because they like to have wildlife around, but they will not tolerate them if the problem gets too big. Short interventions perhaps try to make points telegraphically. There is a paradox here: farmers who know that the hare is a pest will often tolerate low hare activity because they like the animals on the farm.

Colin Pickthall: I agree to the extent that most farmers and landowners enjoy having hares on their patch. As I said in a previous debate, if the numbers of any creature become excessive, it is liable to become a pest. Some of the accusations against hares, that they destroy young trees and so forth, would be better levelled at rabbits, which are sometimes confused with hares, although they should not be.
 In his initial remarks, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that coursing was the same as hunting. He went on to define the two activities in a way that clearly separated them—by sight or by scent. Therefore, they are separated in that way. I also 
 want to refer him to the argument put forward by the proponents of hare coursing, ever since these controversies were first aired, that coursing is not hunting. Those are the people who constantly come to me and say, ''Coursing is not the same as hunting. Therefore, please don't treat us as you would treat hunters.'' The hon. Gentleman would need to talk to them about that. 
 I would like to talk briefly about the issue of muzzling. The counter-argument has been put forward for many years that if we wish to take the cruelty out of hare coursing, the dogs could be muzzled so that they could not bite the hare to death. That is what happens in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside is absolutely right about that. In Northern Ireland, the dogs are muzzled in a licensed framework of hare coursing, but hares meet an equally ugly death by being squashed, knocked about or thrown into the air by muzzled dogs, which are still trying to get at the hare. I have found no evidence from Northern Ireland that muzzling a dog diminishes its will to hunt or chase.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in his place when I made an earlier intervention on that point. The difference between Northern Ireland and the Waterloo cup is that the latter has open hunting—the dogs and the hares can go anywhere they like on the estate—whereas Northern Ireland stages closed hunting. That is more like a dog race, and the dog and hare are in enclosed circumstances and cannot run out.

Colin Pickthall: It is not quite as dramatic a difference as the hon. Gentleman makes out. At the hare coursing at the Waterloo cup, which I confess is the only coursing event that I have attended, the course is the size of a football field—perhaps a bit smaller. It is surrounded by banking with some outlets here and there for the hare to escape through, should it escape the dogs. The dogs and the hares are effectively confined in a bund that goes around the course.
 I am unhappy with the way that hares are coursed in Northern Ireland, although there is a much lower level of activity than in England because of the regime. Nevertheless, the unique species of hare in Northern Ireland—it is different from our own smaller, weaker animal—is under stress there. Hares are netted—the netting process has to be licensed—and then conveyed to the course and dealt with. I do not know whether a larger percentage of them are destroyed in Northern Ireland than would be the case at the Waterloo cup. 
 I briefly refer to the assertion of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that the purpose of hare coursing is not to kill the hare. On the surface of it, that could be argued. Two dogs pitted against each other in the chase of a hare get points for turning it away from its escape hatch. Very frequently, the hares are caught and killed. In the worst cases, both dogs catch the hare at the same time. That is a particularly gruesome sight. 
 The idea that the purpose is not to kill the hare may be true for the owners of the two dogs competing. It may be true in the mind of whoever is in charge of the process. However, it is controlled absolutely by the 
 activities of the slipper—the man who lets loose the two dogs as the hare bolts past. Clearly, if he allows the hare a 100 yd start, the dogs will not catch it. If he allows it a 50 yd start, it might have a 50:50 chance. If he lets the dogs go early, the hare will be caught and destroyed. I saw that process in action when I visited the Waterloo cup with the Under-Secretary some years ago. We were guests there and, I must say, very courteously treated. We were there for three hours. The coursing event had been going on for two hours before we arrived and 10 hares had already been killed. During the three hours we were there, not one hare was caught. After we had gone, 12 more were caught that day and killed. 
 Many hares got away, and some play was made of that. However, that leads us to the question of what goes on around the hare coursing arena. It is a paradise for illegal hare coursers. Gangs of them wait in the fields round about for hares that have escaped. Those hares might be exhausted, fit as a fiddle or wounded—who knows? Very often, although not always, they are picked up and destroyed by men with dogs outside the course. 
 In summary, addressing the amendment specifically, coursing is different from hunting not only because of the definition given by my right hon. Friend the Minister but because of the definition that coursers themselves apply to their activity. There is no utility whatever in the pursuit of hares in that manner. I would say the same for beagling. That would be out of order just now, but I do not think that there is any utility in beagling. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to include hare coursing in part 1. 
 It is disingenuous in the extreme to say that the purpose of hare coursing is not to kill the hare. The primary purpose might well be to score points but the hon. Member for North Wiltshire should witness the pressure that the crowd puts on those controlling the hunt. There is an enormous crowd of thousands of people at the Waterloo cup, with the green-welly brigade on one side and the boys from the Liverpool tower blocks with their crates of lager on the other. By late morning, it is not a pleasant place to be if one is not of the crowd's persuasion. If there has been no kill for a little while, it starts literally howling for blood. Pressure is put on the slipper who, in practicality, controls whether the hares are killed. On the grounds that I have given, I think that we should strongly resist the amendment.

Edward Garnier: I know that this was not the point that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) was attempting to make, but his remarks about the people from the Liverpool tower blocks rather remind me of the Puritans' objection to bear baiting. They were not in the least bit worried about the pain and suffering of the bear; what they did not like was the milling crowd enjoying the bear's pain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to make that point but, if he is not careful, people could gain the impression that he is more concerned about the low life watching on the bank than about the animal life being chased by the greyhounds.
 We seem to be in danger, not for the first time—I think that I have taken part in all the hunting debates 
 on the Floor of the House and in Committee since I was elected in 1992—of talking ourselves into unnecessary confusion. The amendment, which I support, is about coursing, not about hare coursing specifically, and if one accepts, as I do, that the definition of coursing is following by sight as opposed to following by scent, I do not think that there is anything in the amendment about which the Government can complain. 
 If we are to take the Minister at face value and believe him—for goodness' sake, let us do that—he wants hunting through the chasing of one mammal by another to be controlled under a regime governed by a judicial process that is overseen by the registrar and the appellant tribunal. I cannot see a difference between the utility test as applied to hunting by scent and the utility test as applied to chasing or following by sight, if the purpose is 
''to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage which the''—
 quarry species— 
''would otherwise cause'',
 and what might be damaged is listed from (a) to (h). 
 People may have imported into the clause their concerns about clause 7, which specifically attempts to make hare coursing of the sort described by the hon. Member for West Lancashire and all its associated activities a criminal offence. The people from the tower blocks of Liverpool, whom the hon. Gentleman finds so unattractive, would under the clause be committing a crime, because they would be attending a hare coursing event. They could be dealt with by a fine up to level 5 under the summary criminal justice process. I suspect that we need to get rid of that confusion. If we think carefully and calmly about what my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is saying, there is no reason to object to his amendment. Indeed, there is every reason to support it, as I do. 
 One of the Government's more strange and difficult-to-understand arguments, put forward through the Minister's mouth during our debates, was that one of the great things about banning hare coursing was that it would make life easier for the police. I have thought about that argument long and hard, because the Minister has made it on a number of occasions. He clearly thinks that it is a terribly good argument, but I am not convinced of its utility. 
 At present it is lawful to do what will become unlawful under clause 7. The activities witnessed by the hon. Member for West Lancashire and the Under-Secretary will in due course, if the Bill becomes law, be made unlawful. To take the example of the Waterloo cup, I assume that several thousand people attend and watch the Waterloo cup every year and that hundreds, if not thousands, of others enjoy participating in and watching hare coursing in Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and other flatland counties, where hares are predominant and coursing is popular. All those people will, for no better reason than clause 7 becoming law, be criminal on the day after enactment, if they pursue that activity again. 
 I am not clear why the Government believe that making an additional several thousand people 
 criminal, if they continue an activity—many of them will not do so, because they will obey the law—will help the police. It will give the police more to do instead of making their life easier. Moreover, it will give the police a much harder time, because, as the Minister has said expressly and, I think, implicitly, he is not in a position to promise that they will be given additional resources to pursue those who commit the unlawful act of participating, attending, facilitating or permitting land to be used for a hare coursing event. Therefore, that argument does not even get past first base. None the less, the Minister keeps making it, so I suppose we have to deal with it. 
 The only way in which I can deal with the argument is to try to point out to the Minister, and those who support him and his argument, that it does not bear examination. As I have just said, if we provide the police with more criminals without providing them with more resources to deal with the crime, their life will become more difficult. 
 I shall illustrate that with an example from my own experience. I represent Harborough, which is effectively the whole of south-east Leicestershire. It is an area of several hundred square miles and on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, there are likely to be only two—or, with luck, three—policemen on duty: one at a police station in Market Harborough or Wigston, and the other two patrolling that large area in a panda car. Those are the policemen who are available on a weekend shift to deal with what I loosely call ordinary crime: burglaries, assaults, pub riots, and trouble in the streets. Those same policemen cannot also be available to deal with night poachers, illegal coursing and those who become trapped, either deliberately or unwittingly, by the Bill when hare coursing becomes unlawful. I am not sure how I shall explain to Leicestershire police authority and the civilians and policemen who work for it, still less my constituents, how clauses 7 and 8, even if amended by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, will make their life easier. 
 I shall tell the Committee about something else I have learned during the past few weeks. On the Saturday before last, I was shooting in north-east Northamptonshire and one of the other guests was a farmer who owns quite a large farm in the fens on the borders of west Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. Organised hare coursing has taken place in that area for many years. I have read my great grandfather's and great, great grandfather's game books, which give evidence of them having been hare coursing in the mid and late 19th century in that part of the world. 
 I was told by my fellow gun the Saturday before last that it became clear that he could be the victim of quite nasty violence and assault not only to himself and his wife in their remote farmhouse, but to his elderly parents who live on the same farm. Those threats came from illegal hare chasers—I call them that because their activities should not be dignified with the term hare coursing. He decided that he could deal with the matter only by giving into the threats of violence. 
 Those people were not local and came from far away. He could tell that they were not local only because of their accents. For all he knew, they could have come from the tower blocks of Liverpool which the hon. Member for West Lancashire told us about. 
 None the less, those people were intent on violence. I have no doubt that when the Minister tells us about the complaints he has received from Conservative Members about illegal hare coursing, that is the sort of thing that they were talking about. They were talking about criminals intent on violence if they could not get their way. I suspect that they were not talking about the sort of people who take part in the Waterloo cup and events that take place under the rules of the coursing governing body in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and other flatland country.

Hugo Swire: I was talking to a gamekeeper at the weekend who said that because of the rural area in which he works there was a problem with illegal coursing and that the only way in which he could protect his birds and the long-term commercial viability of his shoot was to come to an informal arrangement with local poachers, who agreed that in return for being allowed to course they would ensure that no one else coursed. He was forced to do that because he knew that the police were not able to support him. If he continues to do that, he will be criminalised. The proposed legislation will put him in a Catch-22 situation.

Edward Garnier: I suspect that my hon. Friend's interlocutor will be caught by clause 7. None of us—not my hon. Friend, the Minister, the Conservative MPs who have written to the Minister or me—wants a continuation of the currently illegal activities of thugs who arrive on people's farms and land and threaten violence unless they are allowed to hunt hares with their long dogs. Unfortunately, the Minister seems to think that by relying on evidence of that problem he makes a good case for banning organised and lawful coursing. Logically, that is wrong, and it will not add one jot to the welfare of the quarry species—namely, the hare.
 My farming friend, the person with whom I was shooting the other day, could deal with the problem in one of two ways. He could give in to the thugs or he could arrange for a legitimate coursing organisation to course on his land, which is precisely what he has done for the past few years. As a consequence, the thugs have stayed away. 
 The legitimate organised coursers come from Merseyside. They are prepared to drive all the way from Merseyside to the Cambridgeshire-Norfolk borders to carry out coursing. They do not attract the huge numbers of participants and spectators that gather for the Waterloo cup but are simply a club of people who like to watch their dogs work. Yes, they are prepared occasionally to see a hare killed, as is anyone who has anything to do with wildlife and nature. The inevitable accident will occasionally happen. No one will stand and say that no hares are ever killed. 
 I seek to demonstrate to the Committee, particularly the Minister who has laid so much stress 
 on how his Bill will eradicate illegal coursing or make the work of the police in eradicating it easier, that the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect.

Michael Foster: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman's farmer friend give any indication as to the deal that the organised hare coursing club cut with the thugs, as he referred to them, to stop them causing difficulties for his friend?

Edward Garnier: I do not know the precise details, but the people from Merseyside paid a fee to the farmer to use his land, on notice, on given days. As a result of it being their territory, the illegal guys kept off. I was not privy to the way in which information was given to the thugs, but the consequence of the farmer coming to an arrangement with the lawful people was that the unlawful people kept away.
 I am concerned that the Minister seems to think that he will make it easier for the police to catch the thugs if he makes illegal all hare coursing, including the Waterloo cup and the activities of the people from Merseyside who carry out their sport under the umbrella of an organised governing body. I agree that the police should have the resources to catch the thugs, but by making the Waterloo cup man a criminal, he is not making the police's efforts any easier.

Michael Foster: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. Will he take this opportunity to advise the Merseyside hare coursing club that had contact with the thugs to contact the police and to give them names and addresses, so that necessary action can be taken? Clearly it had some communication with them in order to cut that deal.

Edward Garnier: I have known the hon. Gentleman for some years—since 1997 to be precise—so I know that the suggestion he makes is not mischievous, to use the word of which the Minister is so fond. However, I cannot do that. Although I know the name of the person with whom I was shooting, I do not know the names of the people from Merseyside. I am perfectly happy to send a copy of this afternoon's Hansard to the farmer in Norfolk—or Cambridgeshire. I shall highlight the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
 If that farmer wants to keep in touch with the club that courses on his lands, so that they can get in touch with the Merseyside police to find out who the thugs are, all is well and good. I have a suspicion that the Merseyside police have more on their plate than identifying the illegal coursers who, some years ago, threatened my farming friend and his family in Norfolk, or Cambridgeshire. Even if the matter were reported to the police forces of those counties, they, too, would have plenty of other things to do. 
 The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point, but I do not think that it is likely to bear fruit in practice. Even so, his point does not detract from the power of my argument, which I hope that he will see as sensible. Moreover, it does not bolster the Minister's argument, which I assume the hon. Gentleman supports, that by outlawing all hare coursing he will make the life of the police—particularly the rural police—any easier. 
Alun Michael rose—

Edward Garnier: I suspect that the Minister is going to tell me something else.

Alun Michael: I was going to offer some sympathy to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the people to whom he referred had reported matters to the police, at the moment there is not a great deal that the police can do about it. Other things may have gone on, such as intimidation, damage to property and so on, but the police would have to pursue the issue of trespass. The Bill gives them the powers to deal with the factors surrounding that legal problem.

Edward Garnier: As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) says from a sedentary position, the police need evidence. Unless the people who are reporting to the police can say that one thug is called ''A'', he did the following things on such-and-such a date, and know where he lives, the police will find the case difficult. Most illegal hare coursing is presumably done at times when the illegal hare coursers are not going to get caught—or are less likely to.
 I suspect that most of the activity that the Minister describes as illegal hare coursing is not coursing in the Waterloo cup sense, but the poaching of hare and other game by means of long dogs or, after dark, by lamping with lamps, or Land Rover or car headlights. The evidential difficulty will be exactly the same under the current system of law as under the Minister's proposals.

Alun Michael: I do not think that it is the sort of casual activity that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. There are competitive activities in which a lot of money changes hands. The problem is the surrounding intimidation, difficulties and problems. It would be lovely if one had lots of evidence of matters such as intimidation, but it is difficult to put one's finger on it. That would please the lawyers all right, but the ability to prove that illegal hare coursing is taking place comes down to the issue of trespass, which makes current law unsatisfactory. That it is a different point from the one concerning the impact on legal hare coursing, but it explains why the Bill will provide the police with the tools to deal with illegal hare coursing as it currently exists.

Edward Garnier: The Minister keeps on saying that, but if one unpicks his remarks, one does not arrive at the conclusion that he would like us to reach. Currently, illegal hare coursing, the sort of activity about which my parliamentary colleagues have been writing to him, involves not only the unlawful taking of game from another person's land but the use of threats and intimidation. People intent on illegal coursing came to the back door of my friend, who farms on the borders of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, to threaten him and his family with violence, which is a discrete crime.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Marion Roe: Order. The hon. Gentleman is unable to move such a motion unless he has the Floor.

Edward Garnier: I was not intending to stop, but I shall not be much longer, although I have no doubt that the Whip will have something to say about that.
 Until that time, I invite the Minister to provide us with a real reason, beyond his disapproval of all forms of hunting, to ban hare coursing. We will discuss clause 7 in due course, but in so far as it concerns my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire's amendment—

Nicholas Soames: Before my hon. and learned Friend concludes his speech, will he revisit the viability of hare populations and where hare populations are strongest, which we were debating earlier this afternoon? Altcar is in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who would acknowledge that there would probably be no hares there if it were not for Altcar and the Waterloo cup because people who were after a hare for the pot would have cleared them up in seconds. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that exactly the same arguments about the way in which the hare population will be dealt with if coursing is banned apply to the way in which foxes will be dealt with? There is likely to be mass extermination of hares, large numbers of which will probably be shot and wounded. The net result will be a grossly diminished hare population and one of the most pleasing and wonderful sights in countryside being lost for ever.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend's experience is probably similar to mine. When one goes pheasant shooting east of the A1—this may apply to other parts of the country—one's host says, ''Please don't shoot the hares because we want to keep them for coursing.''

Nicholas Soames: Spare the hare.

Edward Garnier: Yes, spare the hare for coursing. [Interruption.] Whether or not Government Members find that interesting, attractive or acceptable is not the question. There is a distinct link between legitimate, Waterloo cup-type coursing as practised in not only Lancashire but England east of the A1 in the flatland counties, and the preservation of a strong hare population.

James Gray: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is extremely disappointing that when he is making such a powerful speech on a subject on which there is so much more to say, and on which I was looking forward to responding in my winding-up speech, we have been informed by the Whip, who was apparently out of order, that he intends to curtail this afternoon's discussions? The usual channels made it
 plain that we had arranged to complete the discussion of this group of amendments and to move on to two other groups, but the Government Whip has decided to curtail discussion in an unfortunate, out of order intervention. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is disappointing?

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend makes a point that perhaps does not relate to my concerns. There is a great deal about the Bill and its supporters that disappoints me, but, as a humble seeker after truth and a servant of the House and of my constituents, I have to accept that many wholly disagreeable things will happen to me. I have had to get used to it since 1997, when he entered the House.

James Gray: The two are not connected.

Edward Garnier: Sometimes they are. I shall continue to make the arguments in favour of the continuation of hunting, the sensible governance of hunting by, for example, those who govern the sports of coursing, foxhunting, stag hunting and all other forms of hunting, even though numbers may be against me and the arguments deployed by the Minister and his hon. Friends are not wholly or even partly convincing. Having said that, I do not want to try the patience of some personal friends on the Labour Benches, still less my personal friends on the Opposition Benches. I shall not embarrass any hon. Member on the Labour Benches by identifying those whom I like to think of as personal friends. I shall not even excite the Committee by saying who are not my personal friends because there is plenty to discuss concerning the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.
 I shall conclude by asking the Minister to put a little flesh on his assertion—it is no more than that and I would not dignify it with the word ''argument''—that, in doing what he intends in clauses 7 and clause 8 to ban hare coursing, he will make the life of rural police officers easier rather than more difficult. His assertion is extremely difficult to comprehend, which may be a failure on my part, so I would like to give the Minister an opportunity, either this evening or on another occasion, to explain his case coherently and convincingly. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 16 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.